Further, the word movement conveys that something is ad-hoc, even transitory, but many NRMs have considerable staying power and quite often gain some degree of social respectability. The mainline branch of Mormonism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is an established institution in many communities. Wicca has gained some degree of legal standing in the United States: although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Wicca itself, military courts and state supreme courts have upheld the right of witches to First Amendment protection (the site ReligiousTolerance.org has a useful guide to this).

Along with the problems inherent within the NRM category, such a consideration also needs to account for two particular facts about the character of such movements. First, there is no uniformity among new religious movements as a collective phenomenon. They differ not only according to the particular tradition that spawns them (if they claim to be rooted in a tradition) but also even within the broad sweep of a particular tradition.

A prime example of this is that of NRMs within Christianity, whose own emergence as an NRM within Judaism is the paradigm case for the study of such movements. Since the 20th century at least, Christianity has been criticized for its apparent indifference at best and antipathy in some cases toward the nonhuman world. Much of this criticism is framed in the broader terms of an ecological perspective. In his highly influential 1967 essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” the historian Lynn White Jr. argues that the mainstream Christian worldview has promoted a general disregard for the environment—and particularly for the well-being of nonhuman life—that subsequently pervaded Western culture. Further, the Christian social ethicist James Nash counters those Christians who argue that the Christian tradition contains sufficient warrant for an ecological ethic, and particularly for ethical treatment of animals. In his posthumously published essay “The Bible vs. Biodiversity: The Case Against the Moral Argument from Scripture” (2009), Nash says that, apart from some isolated cases, both the Old and New Testaments convey a general ambivalence toward nonhuman life and an overall concern for human life.

Neither of these arguments, however, has dissuaded some Christians that the tradition (especially the Bible) is a rich reservoir from which one can draw the principles of an ethic of care for animals. St. Francis of Assisi, who preached the Gospel not only to humans but to all animals and wrote a “Canticle of the Creatures,” continues to be a major inspiration. A “Blessing of the Pets” ceremony is held not only by congregations of the Roman Catholic Church, in which Francis is recognized as a saint; several other Christian churches have been moved to hold a similar pet blessing service in Francis’s honor, most often in October, the month in which his feast day is held.

Still others maintain a respect for nonhuman life through dietary practices that promote a varying degree of vegetarianism. One example of this is Seventh-day Adventism, a branch of the broader Adventist movement. Seventh-day Adventists have from their emergence in the mid-19th century been health conscious as a result of their strict observance of Old Testament dietary requirements; many are vegetarian or practically vegetarian. Charles and Myrtle Page Fillmore, who founded Unity, argued for the spiritual “uncleanness” of animal foods and promoted “Christian vegetarianism” as a moral outlook. Since the late-20th century, however, Unity has been neither entirely Christian (it is now a nondenominational network of congregations) nor uniformly vegetarian.

A second, equally important point to consider is that popular perceptions of the beliefs and practices of such movements are often sweeping generations that range from aversion to acceptance. Two diametric opposites are Santeria, which arose in Cuba in part from African roots, and Buddhism, in this case as it has established itself since the second half of the 20th century in North America and Western Europe in the Buddhist community centers in many cities. Whenever Santeria is not confused in popular consciousness with the equally misunderstood tradition of Vodou (often spelled “Voodoo”) or misinterpreted as sorcery, it is often stigmatized for some practices that adherents of other traditions deem questionable. One practice involves the ritual sacrifice of animals (the meat is then consumed). The right of Santeria adherents to observe this practices survived a U.S. Supreme Court challenge in 1993; constitutional legitimacy, however, has not entailed universal acceptance.

Service at the Midwest Buddhist Temple, Chicago—courtesy Midwest Buddhist Temple.At the opposite extreme, of course, are the aforementioned Buddhist centers that quite conspicuously promote vegetarian lifestyles (even though the tradition as a whole does not officially proscribe meat consumption) and perhaps even offer vegetarian cafes or tea rooms. The Buddhist teaching that existence is suffering and that all actions carry either merit or demerit that can aid or impede through a succession of lifetimes one’s progress toward liberation from suffering has inspired two particular rituals that many Western Buddhist centers, regardless of particular tradition, observe. Many Buddhist communities observe a day each year on which some animals that are to be killed for meat are purchased and then freed. In some centers in New England, for example, adherents save a fish or a lobster from the stew pot and release it back into the ocean. Some other Buddhist centers hold a special memorial service for deceased pets (see Advocacy’s July 2011 article Dogs Already Know How to Live a Good Life).